Aq8knyus

Aq8knyus t1_j1wexlm wrote

The point is Britain is a tiny country, unremarkable even by European standards. Its rise to global prominence was never sustainable long term. It had already lost its economic dominance before WWI.

The current global hegemon is the US, it is a continent sized country with vast resources and a population of 300 million+. Its dominance makes sense.

6

Aq8knyus t1_j1w4kil wrote

I used the past tense, so it seems you are the one smoking.

In 1800 the UK population was less than half of France. In 1913, it had nearly 20 million fewer people than Germany.

Also ‘only 21%’??? That is over 1/5 you daft sod, that is significantly smaller.

5

Aq8knyus t1_j1w1pb1 wrote

Suez.

The US chose Nasser over Britain and France.

France went their own way stepping back (But not leaving) NATO. Britain maintained a close alliance with the US but stayed out of Vietnam.

Should have stayed out of Iraq and Afghanistan, too.

1

Aq8knyus t1_j1w0r1s wrote

I dont actually like Churchill for his incompetent role at the Admiralty during 1914/15.

However, if you were born in 1874, you too would have grown up with attitudes that wouldn’t fly in polite society in 2022.

12

Aq8knyus t1_j1w01sp wrote

Britain is a small archipelago with a modest population. It is less than half the size of France and didn’t have a particularly large population.

It was always going to decline relative to huge continental sized nations once they got their act together. The world wars just accelerated a natural process.

6